An attempt is made to share the truth regarding issues concerning Israel and her right to exist as a Jewish nation. This blog has expanded to present information about radical Islam and its potential impact upon Israel and the West. Yes, I do mix in a bit of opinion from time to time.

Friday, April 11, 2014

Taqiyya about Taqiyya

I was recently involved in an interesting exercise—examining taqiyya about
taqiyya—and believe readers might profit from the same exercise, as it
exposes all the subtle apologetics made in defense of the Islamic
doctrine, which permits Muslims to lie to non-Muslims, or “infidels.”
Context: Khurrum Awan, a lawyer, is suing Ezra Levant, a Canadian
media personality and author, for defamation and $100,000. Back in 2009
and on his own website,
Levant had accused Awan of taqiyya in the context of Awan’s and the
Canadian Islamic Congress’ earlier attempts to sue Mark Steyn.
For more on Levant’s court case, go to www.StandWithEzra.ca.
On behalf of Awan, Mohammad Fadel—professor of Islamic Law at the
University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law—provided an expert report to the
court on the nature of taqiyya, the significance of which he portrayed
as “a staple of right-wing Islamophobia in North America.”
In response, Levant asked me (back in 2013) to write an expert report on taqiyya, including by responding to Fadel’s findings.
I did. And it had the desired effect. As Levant put it in an email to me:

It was an outstanding report, very authoritative and
persuasive. Of course, we don’t know what the plaintiff’s [Awan’s]
private thoughts about it were, but we do know that after receiving the
report, he decided to cancel calling his own expert witness [Dr.
Fadel]—who happens to be a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer. After reading
your rebuttal, he decided he would rather not engage in that debate.

My expert report follows. In it, I quote relevant portions of Fadel’s expert report (which can be read in its entirety here).
Most intriguing about the professor’s report is that it’s a perfect
example of taqiyya about taqiyya. By presenting partial truths
throughout the report, Fadel appears to have even employed taqiyya’s
more liberal sister, tawriya.

Accordingly, readers
interested in learning more about the role of deception in Islam—and how
to respond to those trying to dismiss it as an “Islamophobic
fantasy”—are encouraged to read on.

Raymond Ibrahim’s Expert Report on Taqiyya

Instructions: I have been asked to assess a report concerning the doctrine of taqiyya
in Islam, written by one Mohammad Fadel; and, if I disagreed with any
parts of it, to explain why—objectively, neutrally, and in a
non-partisan manner. My findings follow.

Introduction

The Islamic doctrine of taqiyya permits Muslims to actively deceive non-Muslims—above and beyond the context of “self-preservation,” as is commonly believed.
One of the few books exclusively devoted to the subject, At-Taqiyya fi’l-Islam (“Taqiyya
in Islam”) make this unequivocally clear. Written (in Arabic) by Dr.
Sami Mukaram, a former Islamic studies professor at the American
University of Beirut and author of some twenty-five books on Islam, the
book demonstrates the ubiquity and broad applicability of taqiyya in its opening pages:

Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam.
Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go
so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.[1]

The following report is written as a response to Mohammed Fadel’s
report (henceforth referred to as MFR) which deals with the topic of taqiyya
and its place and usage in Islamic jurisprudence. Because MFR is
written in a premises-conclusion format, the following report will
follow MFR’s numbering schemata, pointing out which premises are
agreeable and which are not—offering correctives to these latter
resulting in an antithetical conclusion.

Numbers/Premises of MFR in Order:

1-3: Preliminary statements.4: Agreed.5: Agreed, with the following caveat: To many Muslims,
jihad, that is, armed struggle against the non-Muslim, is the informal
sixth pillar. Islam’s prophet Muhammad said that “standing in the
ranks of battle [jihad] is better than standing (in prayer) for sixty
years,”[2]
even though prayer is one of the Five Pillars, and he ranked jihad as
the “second best deed” after belief in Allah as the only god and he
himself, Muhammad, as his prophet, the shehada, or very First Pillar of Islam.[3]
All this indicates jihad’s importance in Islam—and thus importance to this case, since, as shall be seen, taqiyya is especially permissible in the context of jihad or struggle to empower Islam and/or Muslims over non-Muslims.6: Agreed. Qiyas, or analogical reasoning, the
practice of finding antecedents in the teachings of the two revelatory
sources (Qur’an and Hadith) and rationalizing their applicability to
modern phenomena, also belongs to usul al-fiqh, or Islam’s roots of jurisprudence. It gives more elasticity to Islam’s rules (a major theme throughout this report). Qiyas,
for example, is the way al-Qaeda and other jihadi organizations justify
suicide attacks: although killing oneself is clearly forbidden in
Islam, in the context of jihad—in the context of trying to empower
Islam—suicide attacks are rationalized as legitimate forms of stealth
warfare, since those giving their lives are not doing so out of despair
but rather for Islam (as in Qur’an 9:111).[4]7-19: Generally agreed (or indifferent to: some information in
these numbers is not necessarily germane to the issue at hand and did
not warrant confirmation).20: “Normative Islamic doctrine places strong emphasis on the obligation to speak the truth.”
This is the first of many statements/premises that are only partially true.
For starters, Islamic jurisprudence separates humanity into classes.
The rules concerning the relationship between a Muslim and a fellow
Muslim differ from the rules concerning the relationship between a
Muslim and a non-Muslim.
First there is the umma—the “Islamic nation,” that is, all
Muslims of the earth, irrespective of national, racial, or linguistic
barriers. Many of the Qur’an’s and Hadith’s teachings that appear
laudable and fair are in fact teachings that apply only to fellow
Muslims.
For example, although the Qur’an’s calls for Muslims to give charity (zakat)
appear to suggest that Muslims may give charity to all humans—in fact,
normative Islamic teaching is clear that Muslim charity (zakat) can only be given to fellow Muslims, never to non-Muslims.[5]
As for legal relations between Muslims and non-Muslims—or kuffar, the “infidels” (kafir, singular)—within the Islamic world, these fall into two main categories: first, the harbi,
that is, the non-Muslim who does not reside in the Islamic world; if at
any time a Muslim comes across him in the Muslim world, according to
classic Islamic doctrine, he is free to attack, enslave, and/or kill him
(the exception is if he is musta’min—given a formal permit by an
Islamic authority to be on Muslim territory, such as the case of the
many foreigners working in the Arabian Peninsula).[6]
Second is the dhimmi, the non-Muslim who lives under Muslim
domination (for example, all the indigenous Christians, Jews,
Zoroastrians, Berbers, etc. whose lands were conquered by Muslims
beginning in the 7th century). By today’s standards, the rules governing the dhimmi, most of which are based on the so-called “Conditions of Omar”
(sometimes the “Pact of Omar”) are openly discriminatory and include
things such as commanding non-Muslims to give up their seats whenever a
Muslim wants it.[7]
It is, then, in this divisive context that one must approach the
Qur’an, keeping in mind that most of the verses discussing human
relations are discussing intra-relations between Muslims, not Muslims
and non-Muslims. For examples of the latter, see Qur’an 9:5, 9:29,
5:17, and 5:73 for typical verses that discuss relations between Muslims
and non-Muslims, verses which have further abrogated the earlier, more
tolerant ones. [8]
As for the Qur’an verses listed in MFR 20—which are meant to support
the statement that “Normative Islamic doctrine places strong emphasis on
the obligation to speak the truth,” a close reading, supported by
mainstream Islamic exegeses, demonstrates that the true function of
those verses is to portray true believers (Muslims) and Islam’s prophets
as the epitome of honesty and sincerity. Significantly, none of the
verses mentioned in MFR 20 actually exhort Muslims to be honest
and truthful, including to fellow Muslims, in the same vein as, for
example, unequivocal statements such as “Do not lie to one another” (Colossians 3:9) and “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16).
The fact is, other Islamic teachings and caveats have permitted
Muslims to deceive even fellow Muslims. For example, the doctrine of tawriya allows Muslims to lie in virtually all circumstances provided that the lie is articulated in a way that it is technically true.
The authoritative Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary defines tawriya
as, “hiding, concealment; dissemblance, dissimulation, hypocrisy;
equivocation, ambiguity, double-entendre, allusion.” Conjugates of the
trilateral root of the word, w-r-y, appear in the Quran in the context of hiding or concealing something (e.g., 5:31, 7:26).
As a doctrine, “double-entendre” best describes tawriya’s function. According to past and present Muslim scholars (several documented below), tawriya
is when a speaker/writer asserts something that means one thing to the
listener/reader, though the speaker/writer means something else, and his
words technically support this alternate meaning.
For example, if someone declares “I don’t have a penny in my pocket,”
most listeners will assume the speaker has no money on him—though he
might have dollar bills, just literally no pennies.
This is legitimate according to Islamic law, or shari‘a—the body of legal rulings that defines how a Muslim should behave in all circumstances—and does not constitute “lying.”
In a fatwa, or Islamic decree, popular Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajid asserts that, “Tawriya is permissible if it is necessary or serves a shari‘a interest.” As mentioned, empowering Islam is one of the highest shari‘a interests [9] (hence why jihad, so lauded by Islam’s prophet as aforementioned, is sometimes seen as the “sixth pillar”).
After surveying the consensus of the Islamic community (ijma, a root source of Islamic jurisprudence, as MFR 6 correctly indicates) Sheikh al-Munajid concludes by saying: “Tawriya
is permissible under two conditions: 1) that the words used fit the
hidden meaning; 2) that it does not lead to an injustice” [“injustice”
as defined by shari‘a; empowering Islam through tawriya or empowering a Muslim against an infidel is certainly not an injustice from an Islamic point of view].
Otherwise, it is permissible for a Muslim even to swear when lying through tawriya. Munajid, for example, cites a man who swears to Allah that he can only sleep under a roof (saqf);
when the man is caught sleeping atop a roof, he exonerates himself by
saying “by roof, I meant the open sky.” This is legitimate. “After all,”
Munajid adds, “Qur’an 21:32 refers to the sky as a roof [saqf].”
By way of modern examples, and because some Muslims hold it to be a “great sin”[10]
to acknowledge Christmas (since doing so validates Christianity, a
different message than Islam), one Muslim cleric recently appeared on
video counseling Muslims to tell Christians, “I wish you the best,”
whereby the latter might “understand it to mean you’re wishing them best
in terms of their [Christmas] celebration.” But—here the sheikh giggles
as he explains—“by saying I wish you the best, you mean in your heart I wish you become a Muslim.”[11]
As with most Muslim practices, tawriya is traced to Islam’s prophet Muhammad. After insisting Muslims “need” tawriya because it “saves them from lying,” and thus sinning, in a video, Sheikh Uthman al-Khamis adds that Muhammad often used it.[12]
Indeed, Islam’s prophet is on record saying “Allah has commanded me to
equivocate among the people inasmuch as he has commanded me to establish
[religious] obligations”; and “I have been sent with obfuscation”; and
“whoever lives his life in dissimulation dies a martyr.”[13]
More specifically, in a hadith, Muhammad said: “If any of you ever
pass gas or soil yourselves during prayers [thus breaking ablution
purity, or wudu‘[14]], hold your nose and leave”[15]:
Holding one’s nose and leaving implies smelling something
offensive—which is true—though it implies someone other than the
offender is responsible.
Following their prophet’s example, many leading Muslim figures have used tawriya,
such as Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, founder of one of Islam’s four schools
of law, practiced in Saudi Arabia (the teachings of which have spread
far and wide among the world’s Muslims, thanks to Saudi funding). Once
when Hanbal was conducting class, someone came knocking, asking for one
of his students. Hanbal answered, “He’s not here, what would he be doing
here?”[16]—all
the time pointing at his hand, as if to say “he’s not in my hand.” The
caller, who could not see Hanbal’s hands, assumed the student was simply
not there and left.
Sheikh Muhammad Hassan,[17]
another very popular Egyptian cleric (who once said
Islam forbids Muslims from smiling to infidels, except when to Islam’s
advantage [18]) and Dr. Abdullah Shakir,[19] are also on record justifying tawriya.
In recorded videos they both give the example of someone knocking on
your door, you do not wish to see them, so a relative answers the door
saying, “He’s not here,” and by “here” they mean the immediate room,
which is true, since you will be hiding in another room.
On the popular Islam Web,[20]
where Muslims submit questions and Islamic authorities respond with a
fatwa, a girl poses her moral dilemma: her father has explicitly told
her that, whenever the phone rings, she is to answer saying “he’s not
here.” The fatwa solves her problem: she is free to lie, but when she
says “he’s not here,” she must mean in her mind that he is not in the
same room, or not directly in front of her.
Despite their deceptive natures, and in accordance to mainstream Islamic teaching, none of the aforementioned examples of tawriya—beginning with Islam’s prophet and followed by Islam’s doctrinaires, past and present—are considered lies.
This is significant.
Furthermore, that tawriya, which allows Muslims to deceive fellow Muslims, is legitimate according to shari‘a,
should be indicative of how much leeway there is for Muslims when
speaking to non-Muslims—considering that Islam also teaches Muslims to
be loyal to fellow Muslims and to have enmity for non-Muslims, as in the
doctrine of wala’ wa bara’.[21]
­­21: Again, the statement that “The Prophet Muhammad also emphasized the importance of honesty as a central principle of Islam,” followed by the hadith “Honesty leads to righteousness…” is only valid in the context of Muslim to Muslim relations.
Again, because tawriya is techincally not lying, as Islamic
consensus holds—provided the words fit the meaning used to mislead
others—it is considered permissible, or mubah, though a minority
categorize it as “disliked,” meaning that its performance is not a sin,
though not performing it is rewarded (as MFR 17 correctly indicates).
As for the Islamic prophet himself—whose example is to be upheld as closely as possible by Sunni Muslims (sunna
meaning “example”)—above and beyond the aforementioned, according to a
canonical hadith, it is well known that he permitted lying in three
scenarios: to reconcile quarreling parties, to one’s wife, and in war,
or jihad.[22]
It is the third of these categories, jihad, that is relevant here.
According to one Arabic legal manual devoted to jihad as defined by the four schools of Sunni Islamic law, “The ulema [“scholars”] agree that deception during warfare is legitimate … deception is a form of art in war.”[23] Moreover, according to Dr. Mukaram, the foremost expert on taqiyya, this deception is classified as taqiyya: “Taqiyya in order to dupe the enemy is permissible.”[24]
This Muslim notion that “war is deceit” goes back to the Battle of
the Trench (year 627), which pitted Muhammad and his followers against
several non-Muslim tribes known as Al-Ahzab. One of the members of
Ahzab, Na‘im ibn Mas‘ud, went to the Muslim camp and converted to Islam.
When Muhammad discovered that the Ahzab were unaware of his conversion,
and thus defection, he told Mas‘ud to return and try to get the Ahzab
forces to abandon the siege. It was then that Muhammad memorably
declared, “For war is deceit.” Mas‘ud returned to the Ahzab without
their knowing that he had switched sides and intentionally began to give
his former kin and allies bad advice. He also went to great lengths to
instigate quarrels between the various tribes until, thoroughly
distrusting each other, they disbanded, lifting their siege.[25]
A more compelling expression of the legitimacy of deceiving
non-Muslims is found in the following authentic anecdote from the Muslim
prophet’s life. A poet, Ka‘b ibn Ashraf, offended Muhammad with his
verse, prompting the latter to exclaim, “Who will kill this man who has
hurt Allah and his prophet?” A young Muslim named Muhammad ibn Maslama
volunteered on condition that in order to get close enough to Ka‘b to
assassinate him, he be allowed to lie to the poet.
Muhammad agreed.[26]
Ibn Maslama traveled to Ka‘b and began to denigrate Islam and
Muhammad. He carried on in this way till his disaffection became so
convincing that Ka‘b took him into his confidence. Soon thereafter, Ibn
Maslama appeared with another Muslim and, while Ka‘b’s guard was down,
killed him.[27]
Accordingly, normative Islam teaches that deceit is integral to
jihad: Ibn al-Arabi declares that “in the Hadith [sayings and actions of
Muhammad], practicing deceit in war is well demonstrated. Indeed, its
need is more stressed than the need for courage.” Ibn al-Munir (d. 1333)
writes, “War is deceit, i.e., the most complete and perfect war waged
by a holy warrior [mujahid] is a war of deception, not
confrontation, due to the latter’s inherent danger, and the fact that
one can attain victory through treachery without harm [to oneself].” And
Ibn Hajar (d. 1448) counsels Muslims “to take great caution in war,
while [publicly] lamenting and mourning in order to dupe the infidels.”[28]
In short, the earliest historical records of Islam clearly attest to the prevalence of taqiyya—deception
and betrayal, as in the case of the poet Ka‘b —as a form of Islamic
warfare against the non-Muslim infidel. And this is still a legal
strategy for Muslims vis-à-vis non-Muslims—especially if the lying is
rationalized as a form of jihad to empower Islam or Muslims.
Furthermore, early Muslims are often depicted in early Islamic texts
as lying their way out of binds—usually by denying or insulting Islam or
Muhammad—often to the approval of the latter, his only criterion being
that their intentions (niya) be pure.[29] During the centuries-long wars with Christians, whenever and wherever the latter were in authority, the practice of taqiyya became even more integral and widespread.
Professor Mukaram states, “Taqiyya was used as a way to fend
off danger from the Muslims, especially in critical times and when their
borders were exposed to wars with the Byzantines and, afterwards, to
the raids of the Franks and others.”[30] The widespread use of taqiyya
was one of the main reasons that prompted the Spanish Inquisition:
hundreds of thousands of Muslims who had feigned conversion to
Christianity secretly remained Muslim, conspiring with North African
Muslim tribes to reconquer the Iberian Peninsula.[31]22-23-24: Partially agreed. These three sections deal
primarily with the importance for a Muslim to uphold his covenant (a
presumably immaterial point in the case at hand). Covenants are in fact
to be honored according to mainstream Islamic teaching. Even so,
however, and as with the general ban on lying, caveats abound:
Consider the role of covenants between Muslims and non-Muslims in the
context of the perpetual nature of jihad: based on the 10-year treaty
of Hudaybiya (628), ratified between Muhammad and his Quraish opponents
in Mecca, mainstream Sunni jurists are agreed that ten years is the
maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with non-Muslims; once
the treaty has expired, the situation needs to be reappraised.
Based on Muhammad’s example of breaking the treaty after two years
(by claiming a Quraish infraction), the primary function of the truce is
to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup before renewing the offensive. [32] According to shari‘a
law expert Dr. Majid Khadurri, “By their very nature, treaties must be
of temporary duration, for in Muslim legal theory, the normal relations
between Muslim and non-Muslim territories are not peaceful, but
warlike.” [33] Hence “the fuqaha [jurists]
are agreed that open-ended truces are illegitimate if Muslims have the
strength to renew the war against them [non-Muslims].”[34]
Some of Sunni Islam’s four schools of law (or madhahib), such as the Hanafi, assert that Muslim leaders may abrogate treaties merely if it seems advantageous for Islam.[35] This is reminiscent of the following words of Prophet Muhammad as found in a canonical hadith:
“If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that
something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what
is better.”[36]
Nearly 1400 years after Muhammad abrogated the covenant with the
Quraish, Yasser Arafat, soon after negotiating a peace treaty criticized
as conceding too much to Israel, addressed an assembly of Muslims in a
mosque in Johannesburg justifying his actions by referring to Muhammad’s
example: “I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement
signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraish in Mecca.”[37] In
other words, like Muhammad, Arafat gave his word only to annul it once
“something better” came along—that is, once the opportunity to renew the
offensive to empower Islam came along.
In short, the idea of making covenants with non-Muslims revolves
around Muslim capability. This is made clear in an authoritative Sunni
legal text, Umdat as-Salik, compiled by a 14th century Egyptian scholar, Ahmad Ibn Naqib al-Misri: “There must be some benefit [maslaha]
served in making a truce other than the status quo: ‘So do not be
fainthearted and call for peace when it is you who are uppermost’
[Qur’an 47:35].” [38]25-26-27: These sections finally deal directly with the topic of taqiyya. Again, because they are built atop some invalid premises, they are only partially correct.
Thus, “A Muslim who is subject to severe religious
persecution—which exposes him to a reasonable fear of death or severe
bodily injury unless he renounce Islam—is permitted, but not required,
to renounce Islam verbally even though he remains inwardly a faithful
Muslim.”
This is true. However, fear of religious persecution is hardly the
only criterion to justify deception in Islam, as demonstrated above.
Accordingly, the assertion from MFR 26 that “Significantly,
however, he [Muslim] is only permitted to lie about his religious belief
if he is subjected to severe persecution, e.g., loss of life or severe
bodily pain” is plainly false.
As mentioned, according to shari‘a law, deception is permissible in several contexts above and beyond the question of self-preservation against persecution.
Furthermore, MFR mentions Qur’an al-Nahl (16:106), which discusses
the permission for Muslims to dissemble their identity if persecuted by
non-Muslims, as the primary verse justifying taqiyya. In fact, Muslim jurists often point to another verse, Qur’an 3:28, which better captures the overall nature of taqiyya
in a more applicable context: “Let believers [Muslims] not take
infidels [non-Muslims] for friends and allies instead of believers.
Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with God—unless you
but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.”[39]
The exegesis of Qur’an 3:28 of Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923),
author of one of the most standard and authoritative Qur’an
commentaries throughout the Islamic world, follows:

If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’]
authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your
tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] Allah has
forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the
infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them
[in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards
them while preserving their religion.[40]

Regarding Qur’an 3:28, Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), another standard
authority on the Qur’an, writes, “Whoever at any time or place fears …
evil [from non-Muslims] may protect himself through outward show.” As
proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s close companion Abu Darda, who said,
“Let us grin in the face of some people while our hearts curse them.”
Another companion, simply known as Al-Hasan, said, “Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity].”[41]
Other prominent scholars, such as Abu Abdullah al-Qurtubi (1214-73) and Muhyi al-Din ibn al-Arabi (1165-1240), have extended taqiyya to
cover deeds. In other words, Muslims can behave like infidels and
worse—for example, by bowing down and worshiping idols and crosses,
offering false testimony, and even exposing the weaknesses of their
fellow Muslims to the infidel enemy—anything short of actually killing a
Muslim. [42]
[Note: Although MFR 25 correctly asserts that “there are occasions in which it is permitted, or even required, to lie,” nowhere in the report are examples offered of when it is “required” for Muslims to lie.]28-29: “In no case, as far as I know, have Muslim
theologians taken the position that it is generally permissible, much
less obligatory, for Muslims to lie to non-Muslims, whether in matters
regarding religious belief or secular practices…” And (#29), “…there is no doctrinal basis in authentic Islamic teachings to support the claim, made by Ezra Levant and others … that taqiyya
is anything other than an exceptional doctrine justified under
circumstances of extreme duress that are simply inapplicable to Muslims
living in Canada and the United States.”
The many references above (with endnotes below) from the Qur’an, from
the sayings and deeds of Islam’s prophet Muhammad, and from the decrees
and consensus of past and present Islamic authorities, demonstrate
otherwise.
As for the idea that taqiyya is “an exceptional doctrine
justified under circumstances of extreme duress,” it is well to remember
that the premiere authority on taqiyya, Dr. Mukaram, asserts that:

Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam.
Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go
so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.[43]

Conclusion

Deception—known under the broad term taqiyya—is permissible in
Islam, above and beyond the limited issue of self-preservation. This
assertion is not “Islamophobic”; it is true. From a legalistic point of
view, and as seen especially via the concept of tawriya, as long
as deceptions are technically true (“I don’t have a penny in my
pocket,” only dollars), they are not even considered lies. The prophet
of Islam, Muhammad—the example that Sunni Muslims especially pattern
their lives after—regularly made use of deceit. In order to assassinate a
poet (Ka‘b ibn Ashraf) who offended him, Muhammad permitted a Muslim to
lie to the poet. Muhammad is further on record giving license to
breaking oaths (“if something better” comes along) and openly lying
(without even employing tawriya) to one’s wife and in war. As
for the latter, which assumes a perpetual nature in the guise of the
jihad against the non-Muslim in order to make Islam (and Muslims)
supreme (e.g., Qur’an 8:39), deception and lies are certainly
permissible.Notes:[1] Sami Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ’l-Islam (London: Mu’assisat at-Turath ad-Druzi, 2004), p. 7, author’s translation.

We are hypocrites and cowards - we take freedom for granted as it is eroding underneath our feet‏

Message to offended Muslims

A GOOD, TRUE STORY NOT KNOWN BY MANY.....Air Force.

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

What happened?

Mark Hasten Tribute Video Touro College

Housing Quiz

The Record-so far...!

CBS special on Bengazi

Report: 83 percent of doctors have considered quitting over Obamacare

Sally Nelson

Eighty-three percent of American physicians have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, according to a survey released by the Doctor Patient Medical Association.

Islamization on the move

"What we are dealing with is Islamization. Islamization is the imposition of ideological norms in increasing severity. Like Nazification, it transforms a society by remaking it in its own image from the largest to the smallest of details."Daniel Greenfield

Toronto rejects Anti-Israel Ads...

Shrinking Lands

Why Israel opposes international forces in the jordan valley/

/why-israel-opposes-international-forces-in-the-jordan-valley/

Islam is Islam, And That’s It

Back in 2007, when confronted with the phrase “moderate Islam”, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan famously responded: “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading and annotating this video: View video at http://gatesofvienna.net/

There's no racist like a liberal racist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vz4PjxSmtoI

Ex-Navy SEAL Drops Bombshell On FOX: Says Government is Creating Conditions to Impose Martial Law R

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDuds14OBiE#t=156

American surprise

The Nairobi Mall Massacre

Ninh Chu Ninh Chu

Islam Untied

Platitudes about Islam being a faith of peace are not credible anymore. Islam is only as good as the way its followers practice it; and if they have created killing fields in the name of Islam, then Islam will be recognized by the silence of those who did not speak out when their faith was being massacred to massacre humanity.

AFTERBURNER w/ BILL WHITTLE: The Lynching

What-are you against peace?

Sydney Wake Up The Horrific Muslim Infiltration Of Britain - Luton

Kerry: 'Core Issue of Instability ... Is the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict'‏

Kerry is no friend. By endorsing the "Arab peace initiative" he shows his true intentions and beliefs . And by endorsing linkage he shows that he is either a liar or a fool.Syria is on fire, Egypt is at best incredibly unstable and this is due to Israel? It is out in the open!

A word to left-wing students

In their own words-ru listening?

"The lesson these Islamist groups appear to be drawing from events in Egypt is that democratic engagement with opponents is pointless. And that doesn't bode well for countries with strong Islamist movements..."

Flashback: Obama Admits He Cut Medicare

Another Democratic slogan blown to h....

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

When nations and cultures ignore the early warning signs of the infiltration of radical Islam

The UK has 85 sharia courts. France has over 750 “no go zones,” Muslim enclaves where even French police don’t enter.

Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDKk15KcqNk&feature=email

No such thing as "Islamophobia"

However, if you do not want your positions challenged or criticized or even researched, make up a new "phobia"-shout it long enough and some "people", agenda driven, will use it. Ay, yes, the false term does keep many, many financially rewarded-follow the money.gs don morris, Ph.D.

Khader Adnan: Leader of Islamic jihad or innocent baker?

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.More...

Omar Barghouti's Propaganda at USC on January 12, 2012

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’ -- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.Clare M. Lopez

Americans are opening their eyes

Advertisers fleeing All-American Muslim 'propaganda'The American people are seeing through the propaganda piece that is TLC's All-American Muslim reality/dawah show, and responsible advertisers are fleeing in droves. The show aims to combat a trumped-up problem, "Islamophobia," by presenting Muslims who are just ordinary folk, and

Why Islam is Incompatible with Western Law

Col. Allen West answers a question on muslim terror

Challah's Gaza Rocket Counter

This Month:4Last Month:191

This Year: 562

Total since 2002: 12055

Cease fire Hamas style!!

Thanks http://challahhuakbar.blogspot.com/

"Islamophobia"

"Islamophobia" was a politically manipulative coinage designed to silence critics of Islamic supremacism.It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia.

10 Unknown West Bank Facts

Liberals Redefine "Extremism" and the "Political Center"

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist.The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

Don’t ever call it ‘West Bank’ again

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

Who do the territories belong to?

The legal borders of Israel under international law

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror YeminiIn 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state. Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

How Liberals Argue

Hebrew Univ-you rock!!

Judea and Samaria are not "occupied" lands-why?

Judea-Samaria were not only parts of the ancient Jewish homeland but were recognized as part of the Jewish National Home recognized by San Remo and the League of Nations [1920, 1922] and by the UN charter [article 80; 1945].

"Political Correctness."

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."Texas A&M

Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul on the climate issues

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

WHAT Golda Meir actually said...

"When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the First World War, and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist." Golda Meir June 15, 1969: Interview in the UK Sunday Times

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

About Me

Semi-retired Professor, now also permanent resident of Israel;divides time between both countries-serves on several Boards of Directors for Israel advocacy groups;Chana, resident of Jerusalem, JCPA member